A jury can hear evidence that a defendant’s only choice was to drive away from bar fight. The Montana S.Ct. ruled that a woman convicted of DUI can have a new trial so she can present the defense of compulsion.
But “the affirmative defense of compulsion is a well-recognized basis for finding a person not guilty of a charged offense, even though her conduct appears to fall within the definition of that offense,” writes Supreme Court Justice Patricia Cotter in the unanimous opinion.
The state argued at trial that the defendant should not be allowed to present this defense because 14 miles was too far to drive and that she could have called 911 and stayed in her car. The trial judge agreed.
Some of the comments to the story called for tougher DUI laws. This ruling does not have anything to do with DUI laws. It is simply a restatement of the current law regarding jury charges. That is, if there is evidence of a defense the jury should hear it. Judges rule on law and juries decide facts.
Will this evidence acquit the defendant? I do not know. The jury may reject it. At least now they will be able to hear it, weigh it and make a more informed decision.
South Carolina recognizes the defense of necessity. The defendant must show three things:
1. an emergency not caused by the defendant;
2. a reasonable person would believe death or serious injury will occur if the defendant does not act; and
3. there is no reasonable alternative, other than committing the crime, to avoid the threat of harm.
Basically, it is a choice of evils defense. Necessity can be used in South Carolina as a defense in a DUI case where the defendant is presented with a choice of two evils.
